Posted by on Friday, May 9, 2014
Welcome to this week’s Diversity Dish and Happy Friday! This week we have two interesting news stories. First up, law schools in Michigan are coping with the reality of the Supreme Court’s recent decision. Next, a report on lagging billing rates for female lawyers. Make sure you read the article for this one! As you move into the weekend, don’t forget to register for the NALP / ALFDP Diversity and Inclusion Summit in Chicago on June 6! You can complete your registration here. Enjoy this week’s Diversity Dish, Happy Friday and if you aren’t already, follow us on Twitter @CourtneyDredden.
4.27.14 Chad Coleman writes in Crain’s Detroit Business on how law schools in Michigan have been seeking diversity in varied ways in light of the Supreme Court upholding the 2006 state Constitutional Amendment. The Amendment banned any “preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in ... public employment, public education, or public contracting.” To cope with the ban, schools are emphasizing geographic diversity and income to evaluate students. Wayne State University Law School Dean Jocelyn Benson said that “one benefit of going through this saga is that we are now using a more fully holistic evaluation of all that an applicant can offer.” You can’t argue with the benefits of a more holistic candidate evaluation!
5.5.14 Debra Cassens Weiss writes in the ABA Journal on female lawyers billing rates lagging behind their male counterparts. For partners, female lawyers billed about 10% less than male lawyers, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal. Weiss reports that “[l]egal-spending software company Sky Analytics analyzed three years of billing data for the study, according to the Wall Street Journal report. The company found a gender gap in billing rates even among partners of similar levels of experience in the same market.” Possible explanations are that women may be more concentrated in practice groups that bill at a lower rate and that (as we know) women are underrepresented on governing committees in firms. “Employment lawyer Patricia Gillette of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe said another problem at some firms is that big clients tend to get handed down to male, rather than female, lawyers. The problem doesn’t occur when women partners are large rainmakers, since firms want to reward those lawyers, but it can happen among women lawyers with less power, she said.” This story is an example of yet another by product of the issues that women fact in law firms.
